gamersfanonfandomcom-20200215-history
User blog:WaglingtonŒ/Rantlington
GREETINGS My mind has been wandering quite a bit lately, so in an attempt to organize all my thoughts and perhaps share some opinions of issues of varying import, I'm launching Rantlington, a blog series which will be updated periodically to include new "rants," each concerning a different subject. Bear in mind this won't be updated consistently and may be jumbled in order (ie, I may publish one rant and decide I have more to say on it a few days later and thus make the necessary edits when I feel it is necessary). In the interest of not stirring up too much bad blood, I mostly likely won't touch on any wiki issues. That said, I give you my first "rant." Please note that viewer discretion may be advised for a few of these pieces. The Right to Live: How Selective Empathy Drives the Poltical Process Apart from vicious ad-hominem attacks and clever half-truths, appealing to the empathy (or lack thereof) of their audience is a favorite tactic of the standard politician. One could ramble on about policies and new deals all they want, but if they can't simplify it and thereby make it easy for their typical listener to understand, their odds of keeping the people interested in what they're actually saying is going to invariably dwindle over time to say the least. Take the host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver, for example. Though he's no politician, his predictable speech pattern is nothing short of a dead ringer for one. First, introduce the issue. Explain what's happening, who's involved (specifically who it's affecting and who is the source of the problem), drudge up some humorous or easy to understand allegory that everyone can understand, and finally, most importantly, make it personal to the viewer. Appealing to people's ethos and pathos is all important when it comes to making your point. Once again, if all you have are facts, data, and a bare bones opinion, despite the vitality of those three items to the argument, no one will listen if they don't care. Sure, you can make them care by pinning the blame on a specific person or persons, but I've always found that making the listener believe that their way of thinking is the kinder or more empathetic route than their opponent's is much more effective than using people as scapegoats for the problem (though admittedly, there is a worrying fusion of the two strategies in recent memory). Thus we're forced to spectate the rise of buzz phrases such as "the right to live," or "the right to life." We've seen politicians on both sides of the political spectrum use this argument. It's a risky gambit for that very reason; ideally, one should always strive to devise arguments that are not easily flipped on their heads, so to say. It's difficult to say who exactly came up with this phrase in the first place, and thanks to the ensuing confusion, its weight and affiliation have been completely vaporized. If someone approached you and said they believe a man has a "right to live," how could you possibly say for certain what political point they're trying to make - that is, as long as they're not wearing anything along the lines of camo vests or man buns, in which case, one could probably make an educated guess one way or another. Let us dissect the argument, then, when used in the context of the conservative mind. If Ted Cruz were to proclaim that every human has an inherent right to life, he's probably making a case in favor of the pro-life, or anti-abortion, stance. Now we're faced with an interesting moral dilemma. What do we value more: the civil right of the woman who seeks an abortion, or the potential future of the fetus in question? It is always a delight, I find, when a Republican makes that token argument of "what about the child's future? What if that poor little fetus would have grown up to be the next Albert Einstein and their future was taken from them because their repugnant witch of a mother denied them their opportunities by aborting them?" To which I must resist the urge to counter with "what if that child would have grown up to be an infamous chainsaw-wielding murderer?" Obviously, that is not a valid wager to make for either side. No matter how highly a politician or armchair philosopher regards themself, they are not God, they are not gifted in the ways of precognition, they cannot tell the future, and thus their use of such an argument can be dismissed as a desperate attempt to guilt trip their adversary. An individual's future will always be a game of chance. Most social conservatives deem it vital that we give the infant the benefit of the doubt. Liberals view abortion another way. Classic liberals value the freedom of the woman to do what she pleases with her body as paramount. They view it as the civil right of the female to undergo an abortion so as not to put their own health at risk, or simply because they have changed their mind so to say. There is also abortion in cases of rape, which most Republicans seem to be fine with. "Yes, that's all well and good," the generic Republican trumpets. "Everyone loves their precious civil rights. But is the government not limiting my civil rights by making it illegal for me to murder my wife and children? That's right, abortion is MURDER!" Tricky. Let's play out a scenario which some of you have no doubt been privy to. A woman and her partner, both of sound mind and appropriate age, wish to engage in consensual intercourse with one another, but both feel they're not quite ready to have a child yet. To prevent an accidental pregnancy, they visit Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been cited as "preventing 579,000 unintended pregnancies every year on average," for services to aid in their effort. Curiously, though, this is not an option for them, as the senate has completely defunded PP because they do not personally agree with abortion, despite the fact that only 3% of their services actually go to abortion. Another peculiar hurdle is presented before them in the form of ignorance. Because this couple lives in a nameless Bible Belt state, they received absolutely no formal sex education beyond "abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy." Thus they are forced to rely on uncertified information they found on the internet and fractured bits of knowledge passed down to them by their equally clueless parents. "To hell with it," the woman acclaims. "Let us purchase some condoms from our local convenience store and hope for the best!" And so the couple purchases some condoms from a nearby Walmart and engages in passionate loving for a few hours (it would have gone by faster, but the male wasn't sure which hole he was supposed to penetrate). The couple goes about their business for a few weeks until the woman begins to feel odd. Her monthly discharges are discolored and off balance. She feels as if her nether regions are completely engulfed in a hideous rash that won't go away no matter what ointment she applies. She turns down her partner's offers for sex because she's so ashamed of herself. She puts off the issue until she begins to suspect that he is at fault. She confronts him, and he concedes that she was not his first partner. The two check their symptoms online and conclude they must have gonorrhea, but they have no way of knowing for sure. The girl will no longer speak to her boyfriend, as she feels betrayed by his guile. She forces him out, and now she is on her own. That's when more changes begin to happen. She begins to urinate more frequently than usual. She craves food and drink more than ever. She's constantly dealing with fatigue and sudden mood swings, which drive her friends away. She returns to that same Walmart and purchases a cheap pregnancy test. It comes back positive. There's no way in hell she can raise that child (children?) She makes a quick trip to the abandoned Planned Parenthood clinic a few hundred miles away - it is dilapidated and subject to speedy destruction, and in its stead, an ExxonMobil gas station shall be built for the welfare of the people. The congressional Republicans maintain their feeble argument that that unborn child festering in that mother's womb has a right to live that no one can take away from him - or her, there's no way of knowing for sure yet as the mother cannot afford a hospital visit. Indeed, shame on that woman. A new law has been passed to ensure that she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if she dares unlawfully abort that beautiful(?) baby boy(?). Not willing to put herself in any more danger, she spends the next nine months in constant worry, struggling to pay the bills even with monthly social security checks and wondering where it all went wrong. Was this all her fault? Six months later, the woman births a wonderful baby girl, whom she instantly forms an inseparable bond with despite her vehement attempts in the past few months to get that thing out of her body at all costs. She brings her daughter home and she is happy for a few weeks until she realizes that she is completely broke and drowning in debt. Around this time, her child begins to display abhorrent symptoms much like her mother. She has passed her disease down to her daughter, and now, in conjunction with her lack of funds to feed her, the mother begins to seriously worry for her daughter's life. How could this happen? She was due for new benefits because she's now a mother and has another mouth to feed, unless... Ah, of course! Social security has been all but eradicated, and now all people in the United States are free from the oppressive chains of socialism. Truly their bonds have been sundered. Now they may spread their wings and fly - fly like the beautiful angels they are into the toxic ash clouds choking their city - and beyond! The circle is now complete. Clearly, the conservatives have proven that they honestly believe in every person's right to live. Now they must see to funding their new $1.5 trillion military jet, which they can only hope will kill as many "terrorists" as possible. For the sake of national security, of course. These things they hold sacrosanct. Let us harken back now, then, to the "right to life" argument when used in the context of a liberal. They will tell you every human being has a right to live, and that will likely take shape in the form of unconditional healthcare for all. A truly idealist utopia in which all injured persons are guaranteed medical attention free of cost, paid for by everyone, but more so by the people who can handle the extra tax burden. Such things could never work in the United States of America. Don't you know that Canada is just a fairy tale? Yes, conservatives will tell you time and time again that socialism does not and will not work in America, even when, in small doses, it actually seems to be working perfectly fine in many nations across the world. Consider this, then: has any economic system failed more utterly and completely than capitalism? Open your eyes, step outside, take a breath of fresh air (while you can), and look around you. Thousands of hard working Americans are starving, drowning in a mountain of debt, afflicted with easily curable but fatal diseases, or otherwise handicapped - outright refused the basic necessities of life. Meanwhile, a mile away in a posh million dollar mansion on a hill, an untalented pop star has access to all that the afflicted lower class workers lack and more. The difference between the two - the impoverished proletariat and the privileged capitalist - is not one of character. It is one of personal wealth. I find myself deeply concerned by the fact that such basic utilities such as clean water and healthcare services are becoming more and more difficult for the average middle and lower class citizen to afford. They are not morally or genetically inferior to their rich neighbors, so why, in God's name, will they not be given the help they need? It seems, then, that the conservative's true definition of the "right to live" is thus: every person has a right to take up free residence in their mother's nurturing womb for nine months, but after that, you're on your own, you worthless welfare child. Hope your parents have been saving, but we both know they haven't been able to, because my friends in congress bankrupted them. But in the interest of total fairness, there is also some hypocrisy on the liberal side of things. They will tell you everyone has a right to live, and make sure every man, woman, and child is given the basic necessities of life so they may thrive on their own, but at the same time, allow mothers to prematurely end the life of their unborn child, denying them the chance to experience the world and all its wonders. Doesn't that technically mean, then, that liberals do not support the "right to live," per se, more the "right to live after you prove you can handle the responsibility?" We forget, though, that this entire moral dilemma simply stems from the modern politician's tendency to oversimplify things. Both democrats and republicans can proclaim that they support the "right to live" all they want, but in some way, they plain and simply do not. Unless you believe that abortions should be illegal and also happen support single payer healthcare (an invariably oddly mixed bag of political ideals), you do not fully and literally support the right to live. Sorry. But don't go blaming yourself quite yet. Our ideals tend to get wildly bogged down by con-artists and deceivers who, whether they intend to or not, are actively misleading their listeners with every word they say. If we want to stop playing a political game based on guilt and hilariously broad principles like the "right to live," then we need to shift away from a mindset dominated by oversimplification and deception to one dominated by reason and justice. Category:Blog posts